Talk:WrestleMania 34

The Bar (Cesaro and Sheamus) (c) vs. Braun Strowman for WWE RAW Tag Team Championship

As you notice during RAW Taping, Braun Strowman said "HES" (not "WE") entering the Raw Battle Royal and win it for a shot for the RAW Tag Team Championship at Wretlemania 34 . So it will remain The Bar (Cesaro and Sheamus) vs Braun Strowman (Not Cesaro and Sheamus) vs Braun Strowman and TBA or TBD Table should be like there *RAW Tag Team Championship

The Wrestlemania 34 Matches Sandbox Table

No.	Results	Stipulations

🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No such tag team title match appears on the Wrestlemania page on WWE.com nor has a match been scheduled. All we have is the events of the most recent RAW: The bar asked for a decision on their opponents, Kurt Angle scheduled a tag team battle royal. Then Braun inserted himself into that match and came out on top. But as the ending of Raw suggests, there are many questions unanswered: could Braun actually participate in that match? If so, can he by his unconventional win earn a tag team title shot? (Or will he simply get another match at WM34?) If he gets the title shot, can he go it alone or does he have to take a partner? It is up for WWE - in kayfabe: Raw's commissioner or GM - to decide that, not for us to proclaim what we think is the answer.

To place a "TBA" on the match type is silly. If that pairing were to stand, it would obviously be a handicap match. But everything about that whole match is "TBD".Str1977 ^(talk) 00:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The battle royal was to determine who would face Cesaro and Sheamus for the titles at WrestleMania. Strowman won said battle royal. That in turn means he's the number one contender by the stipulation of the match. Of course there are many unanswered questions, but the fact is, Strowman won the battle royal to determine the number one contender(s) for the Raw Tag Team Championship. That's what we know and it is sourced. TBA or TBD, regardless of what term is used, one should be used as we don't know what the match itself will be. What we do know is that Cesaro and Sheamus are defending the titles. We can't just remove Strowman because he might get removed as you implied. That would be speculation and even WP:OR. What is there is what has been presented to us. Come Monday's Raw, we should be getting the answers. --JDC808 ♫ 03:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Simple question: where is the source for a Cesaro & Sheamus vs. Braun Strowman match? You haven't provided one hence the entire match should be struck.

All we have, all you say, is that a TAG TEAM battle royal was scheduled to provide a challenger for The Bar (NB: no word of a number-one contender) and that Braun won that battle royal. That he won it is a bit more official as the bell rung after Braun eliminated Carl Anderson and Braun was declared the winner. Braun also shouted "I'm going to Wrestlemania!" But if you watch the minutes of Raw, you will hear no confirmation that he will face The Bar, either alone or with a partner. What you will are a lot of questions like "no one man can challenge for the tag team titles" and "is this even legal" and "Kurt Angle has some work to do".

That means: a decision about which opponent The Bar will have, which match Braun will have is still out there "TBD", not just the "match type". If what you present as clear-cut actually were clear, the match type would clear too. It would be a handicap match.

Hence, I'm removing the entire match from the card. And since you voiced no specific concerns for my avoiding your 20 occurences of "announce" I'm reverting that too. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's take an example from wrestling history to illustrate my point: In 1994, the Royal Rumble was secheduled with the winner receiving a title shot at Wrestlemania X. The Rumble was controversially won by Bret Hart and Lex Luger collectively. Now, a fictional 1994-JDC808 edits a fictional 1994 Wikipedia article to say that Yokozuna will defend his title against Bret and Lex and only the match type is unclear. (Maybe, if triple threats had been invented back then he would have claimed that it would be a triple threat match.) And his edit would have been unfounded. He would have had to wait until Jack Tunney made decision to have two title matches, to have a coin toss to decide the sequence. So in 2018 you should wait for the decision by Kurt "Tunney" Angle. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

One more thing, in principle, and regarding this specific case: Can't we just wait until we have official confirmation? It's Sunday and tomorrow's Raw will undoubtedly shed further light on the consequences of the battle royal. Waiting these few more hours is not too hard for you, I hope! Str1977 ^(talk) 13:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Str1977:@JDC808: The match going still happen according Dave Meltzer, its going be The Bar (Cesaro and Sheamus) vs Braun Strowman (or Braun Strowman and a Partner). So it be better to just leave as The Bar (Cesaro and Sheamus) vs TBD and Notes TBA Match for WWE Raw Tag Team Championship. Also recent Raw Show confirms. 🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

A battle royal to determine who faces Cesaro and Sheamus is the same thing as determining the number one contender. You're really getting caught up on the term "number one contender" here. Braun winning that battle royal is sourced. Once again, that is why the match type was TBA. We don't know what their decision will be. I'm just repeating myself here, but again, what we do know is Cesaro and Sheamus are defending the titles and Strowman won the battle royal to determine their challenger at WrestleMania. That little example would have been a completely different case. And 20 occurrences of announced? Okay, that can be fixed without removing the information you did (like informing readers who Dave Maverick was before coming to WWE). --JDC808 ♫ 20:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The term "number one contender" is just a side issue but I do think it shouldn't be used here unless it is used on WWE shows (where they already use it more often than necessary). "what we do know is Cesaro and Sheamus are defending the titles and Strowman won the battle royal to determine their challenger at WrestleMania." Yes, that's what we know. We don't know what WWE will make of that. Regretfully, I think that it will be probably one of Busrider's alternatives. But neither what he, or I or you think will happen matters to the article.

This is the article on Wrestlemania 34 and should contain only the information relevant to that event, not everything that happend on WWE shows or might be noteworthy on them. And I don't think "who Dave Maverick was before coming to WWE" is relevant to the Wrestlemania 34 article. His article is linked however. That's enough. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Str1977:@JDC808: Just leave as Cesaro and Sheamus (c) vs. TBD or something until the next we get some more details on the next Monday Night Raw shows

You forgot to sign your post, and that doesn't make sense. --JDC808 ♫ 05:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@JDC808: Unclear opponent(s) for WWE Raw Tag Team Championship Match at Wrestlemania 34. Wait for more details regarding that match.

🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Opponent is not so much unclear as the match is. More editors agree, or are fine with having it as it is right now (if they weren't, they'd change it or chime in here). Only one person has tried to change it, which was Str1977, but he's been reverted by more than one editor. --JDC808 ♫ 06:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Everything is unclear right now. Just wait the few hours until things are cleared up.

It might be useless, but let me spelled it out for you again: it is unclear if Braun will face The Bar; if he does, it is unclear if he will do it alone or with a yet-to-be-chosen partner. (There's even the possibility that the battle royal win will be revoked.) You keep on posting your speculations as if they were facts.

And your version is also illogical: if the pairing were confirmed then the match type wouldn't be unclear or TBD. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

PS. It is also an issue of sourcing. This supposed match is the only one that has no reference pointing to the WWE page; the source referenced doesn't include any definite answer. Whatever happened to the principle, stated by someone not so long ago, that "we can't add it until it's official". Str1977 ^(talk) 09:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In regards to "we can't add it until it's official", that's already been explained, but for TL;DR, Cesaro and Sheamus were confirmed to have a match at WM by way of the battle royal, which Strowman won, and why the match type said TBA. Regardless now, Angle has announced that Strowman is getting the match as long as he finds a partner. --JDC808 ♫ 23:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the subsequent decision shows exactly that it was not merely the match type that was unclear. If Strowman would have been allowed to challenge alone (as your preferred pairing implied), it would have ipso facto been a handicap match (hence: the pairing was unclear, not just the match type), but if - as it turned out to be - he was forced to choose a partner, your preferred pairing (The Bar vs. Strowman) would have been wrong. It was always the pairing that was unclear - the match type was merely a consequence of this.

Waiting for official sources - which you haven't followed on this - has the advantage that we won't post such wrong pairings. Str1977 ^(talk) 02:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015: Why do you feel a need to post an entire chart to get this point across? It does nothing but fill up space. Additionally you have been told before that Dave Meltzer is not a WP:RS so he can say whatever he wants, but it does not belong on WP. As for the match we have no confirmation that Braun will even be in the match. He entered himself into the tournament. Assuming he was not officially allowed in the tournament, whoever he eliminated last technically gets the title shot. They could also decide to just redo the entire thing tonight similar to when Carmela won MITB. There are too many variables to know what is going to happen. Until there is a RS that discusses it, there is no confirmation a match is happening and therefore it should not be included. - Galatz^Talk 17:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The Table is fully necessary to show demonstration . :@Galatz: Carmela is not in the Raw Tag Team Championship Match nor her Money in the Bank Briefcase. Dave Meltzer or not, The proof already there by watching last RAW Its follows whoever wins the WWE Raw Tag Team Chanpionship #1 Contender Battle Royal will be facing The Bar for the Raw Tag Championships. Strowman enter himself in and he won...ring announcer announces him winning the #1 Contender match.

So it best to edit the tables as these options are correct...as optional edits.

Cesaro and Sheamus (c) vs. TBD

or

Cesaro and Sheamus (c) vs. Braun Strowman

or

Don`t even add until we get more details

[[🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) . 19:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)User:BusriderSF2015|🥇BUS rider2015]] (talk) .

@BusriderSF2015: You have been told countless times not to edit other people's posts, yet you keep doing it, why?

I dont think you understand how comparison's work. Just use some simple thought and then reread what you wrote. Its a very simple concept that has apparently gone right over your head. - Galatz^Talk 19:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

See the options i posted above.

🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) . 19:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS that states any of those are correct? - Galatz^Talk 19:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

https://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/2017-03-19#full-detail-40039676 Those are correct, why dont you just for the details as i repeatedly said . 🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) . 19:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You really aren't very smart are you? You say I don't have the details, and then send a link that specifically backs up exactly what I said. Your "source" states Even though he doesn’t have a tag team partner, Braun Strowman shockingly won the Tag Team Battle Royal this past Monday night, meaning that he technically earned the right to challenge Cesaro & Sheamus for the Raw Tag Team Championship at WrestleMania 34 in New Orleans. However, given the fact that The Monster Among Men is a solo Superstar, and since he originally wasn’t scheduled to compete in the over-the-top-rope bout, the victory comes with no small amount of controversy. Now I again ask, do you have anything that backs up what you claim, since you just supported my stance. - Galatz^Talk 19:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It is what it is. Additionally wait for the upcoming raw to further support my details. Peace i am out or else i bring WikiLeon or NeilN to address this again. 🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) . 19:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you think that because you want something in the article that you believe will be announced tonight, but has not been announced, you want to bring an admin in? What exactly do you expect to accomplish? I asked you for a source and you either mention a person who is proven to be unreliable and not a WP:RS, as you can see at WP:PW/RS or you provide something that supports what I said, that nothing is confirmed. What exactly do you expect WikiLeon or NeilN to do? Do you think that an admin is going to say "Well because he is so confident it will happen tonight its fine to put it in the article"? Anything that is not supported by a WP:RS especially something like what you want, which is WP:CRYSTAL, does not belong on wikipedia, plain and simple. - Galatz^Talk 19:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done 🥇BUS rider2015 (talk) . 19:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I see you have once again added nothing to the conversation. - Galatz^Talk 20:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Its correct..cause the edit regarding the The Bar WM34 Raw Tag Team Championship Match is not complete...so i put Not Done until more details come in as i been saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BusriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015: Can you please learn how to format your responses in discussions? It is very hard to read through this thread following Galatz response at 17:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC) because you don't know how to indent your responses. Also, don't make a subsection that says "complete", "resolved", "not done", etc., until there's an actual consensus. You alone are not the one who decides if a consensus has been met. That is decided by everyone involved in the discussion. Also, mentioned it above, but Angle has announced that Strowman will get the tag title match as long as he finds a partner. --JDC808 ♫ 23:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@JDC808: Watch the Show and get the details, and you add details. BusriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

So your solution is to contribute nothing and have us do the work? --JDC808 ♫ 01:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Pretty Much cause guys always question my edits 🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen tonight's show yet, but if I understand what you said correctly, no match is still confirmed. If he doesn't find a partner do we have a Raw Tag Team Championship match? If that answer was not given nothing should be listed yet - Galatz^Talk 01:25, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

let just see what happens 🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) l 01:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015: just because your edits are questioned, that doesn't mean you have to stop contributing. @Galatz: It has been confirmed. Angle announced that Braun would get the match if he found a partner. Braun said he didn't need one, but he would find one. WWE has listed it as a match. --JDC808 ♫ 02:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@JDC808: It has been confirmed, but with a condition. What if that condition is not met? Then we do not have a match, do we? Unless that answer is confirmed then there is no confirmation of the match. The source given in the article clearly states The Monster Among Men will challenge The Bar for their titles at The Show of Shows, under one condition. - Galatz^Talk 13:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

And Strowman said he would have a partner. --JDC808 ♫ 21:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

So? John Cena said he would win the WWE Champinship at Fastlane. Just because he said he will have it, it doesn't mean he will. Perhaps the story line is that since he has been causing so much distribution he is unable to get a partner causing him to create more damage like when he was removed from the Universal Title match. - Galatz^Talk 21:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

WWE have confirmed the match, which is sourced. If something happens and this particular match-up doesn't happen, then so be it, but saying it might not happen, essentially a "what if" scenario, is basically WP:CRYSTAL. Perhaps you are right, but at this moment, we have nothing to confirm your "what if" scenario. --JDC808 ♫ 22:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If that was the case why does the source say it is not confirmed. Provide a source that says it happens no matter what. You can't because they don't exist. That is why including it is WP:CRYSTAL because including it assumes the match will occur, while not including it is based on the fact that he has not met the conditions. Its not WP:CRYSTAL because it current available information only. - Galatz^Talk 13:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to this response by Str1977. It's more CRYSTAL to say that the match might not happen. Your bases is a complete "what if" scenario. WWE have listed the match for the event. If your "what if" scenario comes true and WWE delists the match, then we delist it too. --JDC808 ♫ 00:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

So your source that the match is confirmed is another talk page comment on wikipedia? You cannot produce a source that says the match is 100% happening for a reason. - Galatz^Talk 01:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

That wasn't a source and was not even meant to be. His comment said all that was needed to be said, but that obviously was not enough for you. You know, I really don't understand you. You're all about RS's (which isn't a bad thing), but the RS here has listed the match and you're against it because of a "what if" scenario that you cannot prove. By your logic, there's not a way to actually say any of these matches are 100% happening, so I guess we should just remove them all because there are a whole bunch of "what if" scenarios that could keep any of these matches from happening. --JDC808 ♫ 06:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

But thats the thing, READ THE SOURCE. The source clearly states its conditional. Watch the video included in the source, Kurt Angel says he must meet one condition in order to get the match. It does not say its a lock. The article is using a source that says it isnt confirmed to say the match is confirmed! - Galatz^Talk 12:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I have read the source, but that does not take away from the fact that WWE has listed the match for the event, something that you can't seem to grasp. --JDC808 ♫ 22:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

But their "listing" links to the article that says its conditional. I again ask you to provide a source that says its confirmed. But yet you continue to not because you cannot. - Galatz^Talk 00:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you not understand about WWE listing the match and promoting it for the event? You're getting yourself way too caught up on this "conditional" issue because of a CRYSTAL "what if" scenario that there's just no point in arguing this anymore. Everyone else agrees that the match should be listed for the reasons I've stated. --JDC808 ♫ 01:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you go read what you are referencing. It states "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate." That sounds EXACTLY what you are doing. Please show me what from there is what I am doing? I am looking at the current facts, something you have been unable to dispute, that all conditions for the match have no occurred. Assuming they will be is WP:CRYSTAL, plain and simple. - Galatz^Talk 01:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

But it's not original research. Your "what if" scenario on the other hand is. What is presented in the article is based on the information we have from the RS. We can't present anymore than that, nor can we present a hypothetical "what if" scenario. --JDC808 ♫ 02:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the source supports there are other options. If it says he has to meet certain conditions, then the source says there is a chance it wont happen. It involves no OR or anything else. Including it in the article misleads the reader into thinking the match has no conditions and will 100% happen no matter what. - Galatz^Talk 13:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That's why in the paragraph about this match on this article, it says that he has to find a partner, to which Strowman responded that he would. --JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Colin Cassady is expected to be Braun Strowman partner according to my sources since he cleared for in ring action. 🔮 Crystal Ball example below with Obvious storyline directions 🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs)

That's the first I've heard of that, but that would be interesting. We'll see who he picks. --JDC808 ♫ 02:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Braun Strowman would team up with Collin Cassady

The Bar vs Braun Strowman and Collin Cassady Wrestlemania 34

No.	Results	Stipulations

later to be defeated by Tucker Knight and Otis Dozovic who will get called from NXT.

Braun Strowman and Collin Cassady vs Heavy Machinery

No.	Matches*	Stipulations
1	Otis Dozovic and Tucker Knight defeated. Braun Strowman and Colin Cassady (c)	Tag team match for the WWE Raw Tag Team Championship
(c)  – the champion(s) heading into the match *Card subject to change

🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit Finalization

 Not done

Let see what details are there once Wrestlemania 34 hits. 🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Why did you put "Not Done"? --JDC808 ♫ 03:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC) Because the edit regarding this "The Bar vs Strowman" is not done.

What do you mean it's "not done"? It is done. It's Cesaro and Sheamus (c) vs. Braun Strowman and TBA, because that is what has been announced. And you're signature goes at the end of your post, not before it. --JDC808 ♫ 05:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

its not done...until we fully know who his partner is...is not done. As the Current UFC Featherweight Champion Max Holloway says "it is what it is"

🚪 Out. 🥇BUSriderSF2015 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well guess what? WWE have confirmed the match is happening, so as it stands, it is Cesaro and Sheamus (c) vs. Braun Strowman and TBA. That is what it is. And please don't line break for your signature unless you correctly indent it as well (I fixed it for you). --JDC808 ♫ 09:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Now that the match has been confirmed - and only the identity of the partner is unclear, he match has been rightfully added. Sure, one could say that "if Strowman doesn't find a partner, he will get no match" but a. this is wrestling and we know he'll find a partner. b. For the moment, under that condition, the match is confirmed. One could say "conditionally confirmed". But confirmed nevertheless. Str1977 ^(talk) 01:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done The Edit has been completed finally. Barun Strowman tag team champion is a WWE Fan and is absurd. 🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 03:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

We know. You didn't have to post this... --JDC808 ♫ 06:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Who is Nicholas?

We've had a couple of editors claim that Braun Strowman's tag team partner was one of Shane McMahon's three sons. None of them are named Nicholas - not that it's a restriction necessarily - and more importantly it needs a reliable source. BerleT (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

As per the sources I have got. He is son of Raw brand referee John Cone. See sources [[1]]. No doubt it was part of story line and not the random pick by Strowman. We need to create article on Nicholas as he became notable now and also the youngest champion ever. सुमित सिंह (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that source is reliable. BerleT (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This source or Twitter source is more accurate (more original and clear) with the use of WP:COMMONSENSE its obvious , that is John Cone son who is now one half of WWE Raw Tag Team Champion.🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 07:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Unless you get it confirmed by multiple reliable sources, I would halt adding any identifiable information about a minor. WP:BLP makes it very clear that you need to be very careful in such situations. — Moe Epsilon 08:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Not only that, Twitter is not a reliable source unless it is an official source (eg WWE) and Bodyslam.net is listed at WP:PW as unreliable. BerleT (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct. It's not as troublesome since it is a lighthearted subject, but in the cases such as these, you want to be 100% certain you are identifying the correct person and not misidentifying/leaking personal information of unrelated people. — Moe Epsilon 08:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That source is accurate. The Wikipedia Minor BLP Policy is already followed, because i only used John Cone Son, and there no last name display nothing else. Its more likely to be his a Ring Name or Nickname, so identification of the Celebrity Referee Son (a Minor) is more likely around the internet since he went on TV WWE (a Popular Company and Well Known Company) 🥇BUSriderSFUser (talk • contribs) 08:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I understand, I am only concerned with other editors potentially adding incorrect information (hence why this section was started), and was not accusing you of anything. Related articles such as the tag team title articles and champions articles are now getting edits adding incorrect last names and no sources which need to be monitored and reverted. For now, leaving it as just "Nicholas" without any other identifying last name or such is fine unless that becomes public knowledge backed with reliable sources. It's just that Twitter and anything considered by WP:PW as unreliable won't do for identification. Please go over WP:PW/RS to see which sources we consider reliable for adding any other names other than just "Nicholas". Also, with the digital age, there are also people who may know this child and attempt to add his information as well. It's just a sensitive situation that needs to be handled with care. By the way, make use of the preview button please, I've been trying to talk to you for some time now. — Moe Epsilon 08:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yup that why i put very vague info when it comes to a minor, but evenutlly more deeper info going be public knowledge cause his Referee is basically a celbright?

That is not always the case. We may never hear of Nicholas again after tomorrow night's Raw. There's no real way to tell. If WWE identify him as Cone's son then that's fine, but that doesn't mean he's now a celebrity or that we need to identify him by his real name (whether his real name is Nicholas or not). — Moe Epsilon 09:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@BusriderSF2015: Bodyslam dot net is not accurate as it has been deemed unreliable. At present the claim must be regarded as a rumour only and can not be added to the article. BerleT (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Now he relinquished the title voluntarily. and I don't think so that he can be a part of Wikipedia Article. I saw recently few of the articles have been deleted especially Team PCB (Paige, Charlotte, Becky Lynch) as per checking because that article was unauthentic.CK (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Undertaker's Career

Users please stop adding word RETIRE RETIRED or RETIREMENT regarding undertaker's career because according to wwe.com he is still listed as current roster but as free agent. Roman Reigns said he would retire Undertaker but that doesn't mean we add such things here. so please stop adding "Presumed to be retired at wrestlemania 33" at all. CK (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

You do not understand the meaning behind the statement clearly. Yes, of course he's still listed on the active roster. No one is talking about the present. No one is saying at this very moment he is retired. It's a statement clarifying that everyone "presumed" he was retired. Please google the word "presumed" if you don't know what it means. It wasn't just the fans either. WWE superstars, management, #ThankYouTaker. Everyone thought he had retired. At WrestleMania 33, not 34, i.e the previous WM. A big part of the John Cena storyline was if he would come out of retirement for a match against Cena. The statement has nothing to do with just Roman Reigns' promo. It is worth a mention. Please stop removing it. Goku4Star (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD is a summary of the most important parts of the article. To say that people speculated something happened the year before is the most important part of the article, I suggest you reread the content of the article. To go sourced in the body with the read of the content, maybe, but the lead, definitely not. - Galatz^Talk 18:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Galatz: I get it but another way i suggest you if you want to prove. say "presumed by hashtag ThankYouTaker" and whatever way you want to include. as I felt that it is a propaganda to blame company that they did joke with fans. public want to blame WWE for that act. that's what I felt. I don't even understand what is happening. In real life I'm trying to convince people that STOP DOING THIS if they were about to do this by imposing rumors and spreading propagandas which I totally against that. even via social media. I even read WrestleMania 33 talk page too for some assistance. now It's your turn what you do. I did the same thing at the time of Neville's indefinite leave last year. I try to protect wikipedia from unasusual rumors also. CK (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Asuka's undefeated streak and its detractors

I'd like to question this detracting of Asuka's undefeated streak. Though WWE certainly overpromoted it (as they usually do, which however usually does not stop WP editors from parroting all the promotion language), I don't think that calling her hitherto undefeated is actually wrong. Much is made of two "losses", one in a battle royal [2] in January 2016, another in a fatal fourway [https://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/nxt-sebring-fl-live-results-nxt-womens-title-fatal-four-way-2083669 in February. Even if we take both as losses, that is a streak of over two years (February 2016 to April 2018). But IMO not winning a battle royal is not actually a loss nor is not winning a multi-person non-elimination match, unless the person is pinned, countedout, DQed or has submitted. (Note also, that saying "she wasn't submitted" is not grammatically correct English.)

Also note: it is an "undefeated streak", not a winning streak.

If these two non-wins need to be mentioned at all, it should be in a footnote. The whole issue should be absent from the intro. Str1977 ^(talk) 13:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

What do others think? Str1977 ^(talk) 13:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really see how it's relevant to the reader what her actual win/loss record is Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

When Mr. Perfect lost during his undefeated streak we do mention it on his page Curt Hennig#Undefeated streak (1988–1990), I see nothing wrong with mentioning it similarly on Asuka's page. We don't need that level of detail here though. - Galatz^Talk 14:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

That's hardly the point here since this is not the Asuka article. We have to note the "streak" (which is indeed understood as "undefeated streak") since it is part of the storyline. We should note the holes is that claim but we mustn't use OR to deny that a streak existed. 14:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

It's actually exactly the point. I said it belongs in her article, not here. This article is about the event itself, not the flaws in the story telling. Its valid to include on WP, this just is not the place for it. - Galatz^Talk 15:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Then I misunderstood you. Thanks for clarifying. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Str1977 - you are arguing that Asuka has an undefeated streak of February 2016 to April 2018 (fact based on current info), but what WWE is presenting is that she has been undefeated since she joined in 2015 (false even within storyline/kayfabe). If you want to pick and choose, Cedric Alexander has a TV undefeated streak since December 2017. Brock Lesnar has an undefeated streak since February 2017. But we don't say Cedric and Lesnar have "undefeated streaks". We have a responsibility to readers to present accurate information. We should not, in Wikipedia's voice, merely state she has an undefeated streak without clarifying the time period. The truth is that Asuka's real streak is that she has never been pinned or submitted in WWE. We can frame the information that Charlotte is the first one to submit Asuka in WWE. That is a fact. starship.paint ~ KO 04:30, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying two things:

1. that WWE promoted an "undefeated since arrival" streak and that this undefeated streak (not some other accomplishment like never being pinned, never having submitted or having won every match) played a major role in the feud.

2. that an actual undefeated streak existed. The length of that streak depends on how one views what your counterexamples (which, BTW, are all thus far OR). Of these only the tag team loss (her team lost, though her partner was pinned) constitutes an actual loss for her, not the Battle Royal, not the Fatal Fourway. But I'm not advocating putting this or that opinion into the article but want to keep the article's focus shifting from the event and its relevant storylines to an argument about how long the streak actually was.
The topic is raised in the Asuka article and could also be raised in a footnote in this article. A footnote you first created and then deleted. I restored the footnote but after the discussion with Galatz deleted it again. I would happily restore it IF we can find a good place where to put it.

I'm all for accurate information: hence we have to write that an "undefeated streak" (as per point 1) a focus of the storyline. Your rewordings are not doing this. Your "Asuka's real streak" is both OR (as you are the only one raising that issue) and POV.

Streaks of other wrestlers don't concern the issue as they were not raised in storylines. I'm actually pretty dismissive of streaks in general and thought the Undertaker streak one of the lamest elements of Wrestlemanias a few years back.

Finally, "Charlotte is the first one to submit Asuka in WWE" is not a grammatically correct sentence. Submit to what? Actually, Charlotte made her submit.

Str1977 ^(talk) 22:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

There's three kinds of outcomes. Win, lose or draw. If only one person wins a battle royale, the others lose. If one person wins a fatal four way match, the others lose. Reliable sources are clear: Carmella won the battle royale, Bayley won the fatal four way. You're trying to say these aren't actual losses which is weird. You shouldn't use the actual shorter undefeated streak to justify the promoted longer undefeated streak. Wherever the promoted streak is mentioned there should be a footnote to qualify it. Whether in the body or the lede. starship.paint ~ KO 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm saying that saying that Asuka lost the battle royal would paint a false picture. Actually nobody talks like that, nobody says that 29 wrestlers lost the Rpyal Rumble but that one won it. When you call on Reliable Source, do you have any for your position that Asuka lost that battle royal (not just that Carmella won, but that Asuka lost).

No, I'm not saying that losses are not losses in the article. I'm saying when wording the holes in the streak, we should be careful. And I'm also saying that we still have to relate the items of the storyline, not rephrase them into something that was not talked about.

Suggestion: we restore the footnote as we last had it and restore your linking to every occurence of "undefeated streak" (as you once had it). But we keep the wording "undefeated streak".

Alternative suggestion: we give the explanation from that footnote in the article body, in the storyline section. That has the advantage of not having a footnote but we can then only note the problem in one place.

Would you be content with one of these suggestions? Str1977 ^(talk) 06:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• It is entirely possible to lose in a battle royale as reliable sources have noted: [3] Andre lost in a battle royal / [4] He had never lost a battle royal until one in 1972 / [5] Joe lost a battle royal
• However in the interests of compromise, the first suggestion can be applied with the following tweak; see my edits. starship.paint ~ KO 00:47, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that these can be seen as losses but say that they are normally not considered such (again, the tag team match is a different matter).

I was first confused by the formatting of your edit but it appears that it needs to be done like this. However, in the interest of being concise I still prefer the more encompassing wording "came up short in ... and ..." I also don't see that the exact dates are relevant here. Str1977 ^(talk) 16:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I present another alternative to your review. I shortened the details in the footnote (to just "battle royal on TV and two non-televised multi-person matches") and moved the details (what kind of matches) over to Asuka's article, the relevant section of which I also linked in the footnote. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Str1977: - I find "multi-person match" very vague. It's not standard lingo we would hear from wrestling shows. Plus, the battle royal is also a multi-person match. If I heard "multi-person match" I would be scratching my head, maybe you mean a triple threat but a tag team match wouldn't really come to mind. Versus simply saying "one tag team match and one fatal four way match". The latest date is relevant for the 'real' undefeated streak. starship.paint ~ KO 04:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with naming the date, hence I kept/restored it.

Regarding the vague terminology: indeed "multi-person match" is a rather new term and only appears regarding women. But the equivalent "multi-man match" is heard frequently as an umbrella term for all these triple threats, fatal fourways, sixpack challenges and ninefold nonsense.

However, I don't see that "never heard at a wrestling show" is a good argument. You hear a lot of strange wordings in wrestling, especially WWE, and we do not parrot it (or at least, we shouldn't). But I see your point about being understood. My intention is to refrain from a detailed listing of every match Asuka has "lost". Can you think of another way to avoid this?

That the Battle Royal is also, strictly speaking, a multi-person match, is IMO not a problem as we say "at battle royal on TV and two non-televised multi-person matches. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

if there are like five non-TV matches then yeah it would be too much detail. But 2 is not too much. Furthermore you consider a tag match a multi-person match. Which is the problem IMO starship.paint ~ KO 04:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I did not introduce that term to begin with but only used what was already there (at the Asuka article) when I switched between the two articles: more detail there, less detail here. And yes, even if it's only three matches, I consider mentioning every match Asuka "lost" too much detail. What can we do? Str1977 ^(talk) 15:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Results section request on 17 November 2023.

Hello, I was looking at the results section and noticed that the results table wasn't build correctly. So, I fixed it but upon further review I noticed a lot of incorrect information on the page. I noticed non-existant matches being listed on the page and was wondering if we can revert it back to the revision as of 00:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC) by MaterialScientist, as that is the correct version of the table. Aiden4Real (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)